What if, in response to the German declaration of USW, the U.S. would have entered World War I but refused to send any U.S. troops to Europe?

Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise by President Wilson--specifically, he would look tough by declaring war on Germany over USW but try to honor the substance of his 1916 campaign slogan "He kept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out of Europe.

What would the consequences of this have been? For instance, would the Entente powers be more receptive to seeking a compromise peace with Germany if they knew that U.S. troops were not forthcoming? Or, with their financial problems being solved (after all, the U.S. would still fund the Entente in this TL), would the Entente powers keep trying to get the U.S. to send over troops to Europe?

Also, would the U.S. public have supported such a compromise (a U.S. declaration of war on Germany, but no U.S. troops being sent to Europe) on Wilson's part? If so, could this have resulted in a much better Democratic performance in the 1918 and 1920 elections?

In addition to this, how would Germany have reacted to such a U.S. move?

Post by WolfBearWhat if, in response to the German declaration of USW, the U.S. would have entered World War I but refused to send any U.S. troops to Europe?Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise by President Wilson--specifically, he would look tough by declaring war on Germany over USW but try to honor the substance of his 1916 campaign slogan "He kept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out of Europe.What would the consequences of this have been? For instance, would the Entente powers be more receptive to seeking a compromise peace with Germany if they knew that U.S. troops were not forthcoming? Or, with their financial problems being solved (after all, the U.S. would still fund the Entente in this TL), would the Entente powers keep trying to get the U.S. to send over troops to Europe?Also, would the U.S. public have supported such a compromise (a U.S. declaration of war on Germany, but no U.S. troops being sent to Europe) on Wilson's part? If so, could this have resulted in a much better Democratic performance in the 1918 and 1920 elections?In addition to this, how would Germany have reacted to such a U.S. move?Any thoughts on all of this?

Question: Despite not sending troops, would Wilson still have the Navy go on anti-submarine warfare or convoy duties?

Post by WolfBearWhat if, in response to the German declaration of USW, the U.S. would have entered World War I but refused to send any U.S. troops to Europe?Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise by President Wilson--specifically, he would look tough by declaring war on Germany over USW but try to honor the substance of his 1916 campaign slogan "He kept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out of Europe.What would the consequences of this have been? For instance, would the Entente powers be more receptive to seeking a compromise peace with Germany if they knew that U.S. troops were not forthcoming? Or, with their financial problems being solved (after all, the U.S. would still fund the Entente in this TL), would the Entente powers keep trying to get the U.S. to send over troops to Europe?Also, would the U.S. public have supported such a compromise (a U.S. declaration of war on Germany, but no U.S. troops being sent to Europe) on Wilson's part? If so, could this have resulted in a much better Democratic performance in the 1918 and 1920 elections?In addition to this, how would Germany have reacted to such a U.S. move?Any thoughts on all of this?

How do you do that? You're suggesting the US would conduct strictly anaval campaign? How quickly can the US build 200 destroyers anyhow?(Because presumably a naval campaign would be primarily anti-US boatthis being well after Jutland)

And how exactly would a naval campaign contribute to victory over theother Central Powers? I suppose it might cost us von Trapp as he wasan Austro-Hungarian naval war hero known primarily for his service inU-boats.

Post by The Horny GoatHow do you do that? You're suggesting the US would conduct strictly anaval campaign? How quickly can the US build 200 destroyers anyhow?(Because presumably a naval campaign would be primarily anti-US boatthis being well after Jutland)

I guess not sending to Europe means they could go else where in the world. I don't know why the USA would be interested in anything in German Africa. I could see the US taking some of the island in the Pacific other than Japan getting them. Maybe the US would go into German areas in China.

I guess I'm seeing this the USA going to certain areas that after WW1 they would get to keep. Not sure if this is something the Wilson administration would really want to do.

Post by WolfBearWhat if, in response to the German declaration of USW, the U.S. would have entered World War I but refused to send any U.S. troops to Europe?Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise by President Wilson--specifically, he would look tough by declaring war on Germany over USW but try to honor the substance of his 1916 campaign slogan "He kept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out of Europe.What would the consequences of this have been? For instance, would the Entente powers be more receptive to seeking a compromise peace with Germany if they knew that U.S. troops were not forthcoming? Or, with their financial problems being solved (after all, the U.S. would still fund the Entente in this TL), would the Entente powers keep trying to get the U.S. to send over troops to Europe?Also, would the U.S. public have supported such a compromise (a U.S. declaration of war on Germany, but no U.S. troops being sent to Europe) on Wilson's part? If so, could this have resulted in a much better Democratic performance in the 1918 and 1920 elections?In addition to this, how would Germany have reacted to such a U.S. move?Any thoughts on all of this?

Post by WolfBearWhat if, in response to the German declaration ofUSW, the U.S. would have entered World War I butrefused to send any U.S. troops to Europe?Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise byPresident Wilson--specifically, he would look toughby declaring war on Germany over USW but try tohonor the substance of his 1916 campaign slogan "Hekept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out ofEurope.

I don't see this as politically viable. The declarationof war was followed by a great burst of "jingo" sentiment.There would be intense pressure on Wilson for the USto send a volunteer corps to France. If nothing else,Teddy Roosevelt would be out yelling for it, and ofcourse offering to lead it (seriously annoying theregular Army).

Post by WolfBearWhat if, in response to the German declaration ofUSW, the U.S. would have entered World War I butrefused to send any U.S. troops to Europe?Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise byPresident Wilson--specifically, he would look toughby declaring war on Germany over USW but try tohonor the substance of his 1916 campaign slogan "Hekept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out ofEurope.

I don't see this as politically viable. The declarationof war was followed by a great burst of "jingo" sentiment.There would be intense pressure on Wilson for the USto send a volunteer corps to France. If nothing else,Teddy Roosevelt would be out yelling for it, and ofcourse offering to lead it (seriously annoying theregular Army).--Nous sommes dans une pot de chambre, et nous y serons emmerdés.--- General Auguste-Alexandre Ducrot at Sedan, 1870.

You're right; U.S. volunteers would be sent over to Europe. However, based on the information here, it looks like only 32,000 American men volunteered for service--hence the need for a draft! :

Post by WolfBearYou're right; U.S. volunteers would be sent over toEurope. However, based on the information here, itlooks like only 32,000 American men volunteered forservice--hence the need for a draft!

What that articles states is that only 32,000 men hadvolunteered "three weeks after the war was declared."I am certain many more volunteered later.

Wiki sez that two million men volunteered by August1918, at which time volunteering was prohibited (theservices preferring to get men by the more orderlyprocess of conscription).

Even if only 10,000 men volunteered each week, thatwould be over 400,000 men by the end of 1917.

Post by Rich RostromI don't see this as politically viable. The declarationof war was followed by a great burst of "jingo" sentiment.There would be intense pressure on Wilson for the USto send a volunteer corps to France. If nothing else,Teddy Roosevelt would be out yelling for it, and ofcourse offering to lead it (seriously annoying theregular Army).

I completely agree and while FDR might have preferred an all navalcampaign he wasn't in charge. I cannot imagine Wilson keeping landtroops out of Europe and had he seriously tried it would have damagedhis party for a generation.

Post by Rich RostromI don't see this as politically viable. The declarationof war was followed by a great burst of "jingo" sentiment.There would be intense pressure on Wilson for the USto send a volunteer corps to France. If nothing else,Teddy Roosevelt would be out yelling for it, and ofcourse offering to lead it (seriously annoying theregular Army).

I completely agree and while FDR might have preferred an all navalcampaign he wasn't in charge. I cannot imagine Wilson keeping landtroops out of Europe and had he seriously tried it would have damagedhis party for a generation.

Would it have? After all, Wilson's 1916 campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war"!

Post by Rich RostromI don't see this as politically viable. The declarationof war was followed by a great burst of "jingo" sentiment.There would be intense pressure on Wilson for the USto send a volunteer corps to France. If nothing else,Teddy Roosevelt would be out yelling for it, and ofcourse offering to lead it (seriously annoying theregular Army).

I completely agree and while FDR might have preferred an all navalcampaign he wasn't in charge. I cannot imagine Wilson keeping landtroops out of Europe and had he seriously tried it would have damagedhis party for a generation.

Would it have? After all, Wilson's 1916 campaign slogan was "He kept us out of war"!

By not sending US troops, "he keeps us out of war", specificallythe meat grinder which is France.Naval Operations provide a "sanitary" means of waging war.

As to the jingo ism - I suspect a lot of that was ginned up byWilsonian supporters who thought that what the President wanted wasjust great. Besides, it made it possible for more direction of the USaccording to scientific principles.

Post by WolfBearWhat if, in response to the German declaration of USW, theU.S. would have entered World War I but refused to send anyU.S. troops to Europe?Basically, this would be an attempt at compromise by PresidentWilson--specifically, he would look tough by declaring war onGermany over USW but try to honor the substance of his 1916 campaignslogan "He kept us out of war" by keeping U.S. troops out of Europe.

I've mentioned this before. I think this is possible if the US (which,after all, fought as an "Associated Power") enters the war in 1915explicitly in response to the sinking of the _Lusitania_ and otherGerman incidents which challenge the principle of freedom of the seas.

Positioned this way, it's possible that Wilson can resist internal andexternal demands to send soldiers to France. German Americans andantiwar groups would be Wilson's allies here. If he can hold off for ayear, the Somme and other meat grinders will help Wilson's case,although the pressure will be immense. The tightrope is very, verydifficult to traverse; Hughes or another GOP candidate in 1916 mightrun on a pro-AEF platform (although, depending on how the war isgoing, it might result in a bigger win for Wilson). After mid-1917 thebody count on the Western Front is such that the political momentumwould clearly be against American ground forces, even against the mostfrenzied demands yet from the British and French for manpower.